Where's the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when you need it?

Here's an account, from a judicial ruling, of the experience of a citizen trying to vote in Georgia:

"Prior to voting early in the November 6, 2018 election, Mr. Oren checked Defendant Kemp’s Secretary of State website, which informed Mr. Oren that he could vote if he brought proof of citizenship to the polling station. On October 16, 2018, Mr. Oren went to his designated early-voting polling location in Fulton County. He checked in with a poll worker and showed her his valid United States passport as proof of citizenship. The poll worker directed Mr. Oren to another election official, who informed Mr. Oren that she would need to call yet another person to change his status from 'pending' to 'active' so that he could vote. While Mr. Oren waited, the official was unable to reach the intended person on the phone and informed Mr. Oren that he could continue to wait or come back another time to vote. No one offered Mr. Oren an option to cast a provisional ballot. Mr. Oren did not want to wait any longer and left."

It seems to me clear that Brian Kemp and his associates are engaged in a criminal conspiracy. RICO laws should be applied.

Fear (and Loathing)

Trump's lawyer told him, "Don't testify. It's either that or an orange jumpsuit." Then he resigned.

The rest of the story:
Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward.

Fear

"Woodward's book, detailing the inner workings of Trump's administration, is set to hit shelves Sept. 11. The White House has issued a blanket refutation of the book's claims, which it says are based on information from disgruntled ex-employees." Except, who has so many disgruntled ex-employees their gripes would fill a book?

"I've got a plan for that"

Our long-running political theater of the absurd

Closing soon?

When Scott Pruitt is fired he will be replaced by his deputy, Andrew Wheeler (not incidently a coal lobbyist and former aid to Jim Inhofe, the Senate’s most prominent denier of climate change), who will calmly, efficiently, and unostentaciously proceed along the same course as Pruitt, polluting air and water, trashcanning regulations, shutting down enforcement, highjacking public lands, and generally undermining 70 years of hard-won progress on the environment.

The system will have worked, however: the corrupt and "extremist" Pruitt will be banished (but, not to worry, he will in all certainty spin through the revolving door to a high-paying precinct from which he will pester his former employees for special treatment for the same industries he currently -- nominally -- regulates).

The same dynamic will follow Donald Trump's departure. We will be told ad nauseum that our "exceptional," "democratic" system of checks

Dan Wasserman twitter@wassermantoons

and balances has rescued us from a narcissitic, unlettered, wannabe dictator and replaced him with the moderate, unassuming, grown-up Mr. Pence. Ignored in this account will be Mike Pence's history as a right-wing fanatic and fundamentalist religious lunatic whose real job will be to put lipstick on the pig of the Right's determination to turn back the clock, if not all the way to the 11th century, at least to 1876.

If the system worked, it hardly needs to be said, we wouldn't have a Pence or a Trump in the first place. Nor for that matter, would we be burdened with elected officials like blue dog Democrats Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly who helped to deploy Andrew Wheeler for his assault of the environment.

Extra credit:
✓ If scandals oust Pruitt, Andrew Wheeler is an ex-coal industry lobbyist pledged to end the ‘pure hell’ of Obama regulations: Scott Pruitt's new EPA deputy could surpass boss in scrapping protections by Oliver Milman (The Guardian)
✓ The US election and the systematic failure of modern politics by Benjamin Farrand (Critical Legal Thinking)

Is there a generic drug for outrage fatigue?

Banned video exposes the Military Industrial Complex

The Duopoly

A provision "Congress snuck into the spending the bill will be more galling to some, because it amounts to a pay raise for the two unpopular political parties: It raises the $32,400 maximum that donors could give the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee to a whopping $324,000 per year, gutting what’s left of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. The Washington Post says this was inserted on page 1,599 of a 1,603-page bill."

The rest of the story: Sneak Attack? Congress Slips Controversial Measures Into Spending Bill (PopularResistance)

The Financial Mess: Self-regulation is a joke

Damage from the bursting of the housing bubble was vastly compounded by an industry-wide conspiracy of Wall Street bankers to create a market for worthless financial products, in particular collections of mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

According to the non-profit investigative news organization ProPublica, when faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks -- primarily Merrill Lynch, but also Citigroup, UBS and others -- "hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses: They created fake demand," buying and trading their own products to crank up an assembly line that in a prudently regulated economy would have been flagged to a stop.

As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006, investors became skittish about the riskier parts of those investments. So the banks created -- and ultimately provided most of the money for -- new CDOs. Those new CDOs bought the hard-to-sell pieces of the original CDOs. The result was a daisy chain that solved one problem but created another: Each new CDO had its own risky pieces. Banks created yet other CDOs to buy those.

Individual instances of these questionable trades have been reported before, but ProPublica's investigation, done in partnership with NPR's Planet Money, shows that by late 2006 they had become common industry practice.

In the last years of the boom, CDOs had become the dominant purchaser of CDOs and CDO slices, in deals organized by the banks themselves that largely replaced legitimate investors like pension funds. For example, "[i]n the last two years of the boom, nearly half of all CDOs sponsored by market leader Merrill Lynch bought significant portions of other Merrill CDOs."

ProPublica also found 85 instances during 2006 and 2007 in which two CDOs bought pieces of each other's unsold inventory. These trades, which involved $107 billion worth of CDOs, underscore the extent to which the market lacked real buyers. Often the CDOs that swapped purchases closed within days of each other, the analysis shows.

There were supposed to be protections against this sort of double dealing, of course. The CDOs were overseen by managers who, though selected by the banks, were legally bound to protect the interests of the CDOs. Paid by the CDOs, not the banks, the "independent" managers were supposed to serve as a bulwark against self-dealing by the financial institutions, the only ones with even an inkling of how the complex and virtually unregulated mortgage bonds worked.

It rarely worked out that way. The managers were beholden to the banks that sent them the business. On a billion-dollar deal, managers could earn a million dollars in fees, with little risk. Some small firms did several billion dollars of CDOs in a matter of months.

Unfortunately for us, nothing in the Wall Street-dominated federal financial reforms will prevent it from happening again. What a laugh.

The rest of the story: Banks’ Self-Dealing Super-Charged Financial Crisis by Jake Bernstein and Jesse Eisinger (ProPublica 2010-08-27).

See, also: Wall Street's Big Win by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone 2010-08-04); Misnamed Financial Services “Reform” Bill Passes, Systemic Risk is Alive and Well by Yves Smith (Naked Capitalism 2010-07-26).

The Long War: American Wealth & Well-Being Squandered in Afghanistan

On Monday, Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich made the following statement on the floor of the House concerning an expected vote on a $33 billion supplemental war funding bill:

In a little more than a year the United States flew $12 billion in cash to Iraq, much of it in $100 bills, shrink wrapped and loaded onto pallets. Vanity Fair reported in 2004 that ‘at least $9 billion' of the cash had ‘gone missing, unaccounted for.' $9 billion.

Today, we learned that suitcases of $3 billion in cash have openly moved through the Kabul airport. One U.S. official quoted by the Wall Street Journal said, ‘A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen.' $3 billion. Consider this as the American people sweat out an extension of unemployment benefits.

Last week, the BBC reported that "the US military has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who are funneling the money to warlords." Add to that a corrupt Afghan government underwritten by the lives of our troops.

And now reports indicate that Congress is preparing to attach $10 billion in state education funding to a $33 billion spending bill to keep the war going.

Back home millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, losing their savings, their pensions, and their retirement security. We are losing our nation to lies about the necessity of war.

Bring our troops home. End the war. Secure our economy.

See the video here.

Understatement of the week: Corruption Suspected in Airlift of Billions in Cash From Kabul by Matthew Rosenberg (Wall Street Journal 2010-06-25).

Here's a more worthwhile topic than the future of General McChrystal's command:

The Long War: Warlord, Inc.

“The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country,” according to a congressional report. The security arrangements “violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations.” -- Warlord, Inc. Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan (pdf) (House of Representatives 2010-06).

Health Care: The Unbearable Lightness of Reform

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

That wickedly satirical Ambrose Bierce described politics as "the conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

Bierce vanished to Mexico nearly a hundred years ago -- to the relief of the American political class of his day, one assumes -- but in an eerie way he was forecasting America's political culture today. It seems like most efforts to reform a system that's gone awry -- to clean house and make a fresh start -- end up benefiting the very people who wrecked it in the first place.

Which is why Bierce, in his classic little book, The Devil's Dictionary, defined reform as "a thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation."

So we got health care reform this week -- but it's a far cry from reformation. You can't blame President Obama for celebrating what he did get -- he and the Democrats needed some political points on the scoreboard. And imagine the mood in the White House if the vote had gone the other way; they would have been cutting wrists instead of cake.

Give the victors their due: the bill Obama signed expands coverage to many more people, stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry that should have been stopped long ago, and offers a framework for more change down the road, if there's any heart or will left to fight for it.

But reformation? Hardly. For all their screaming and gnashing of teeth, the insurance companies still make out like bandits. Millions of new customers, under penalty of law, will be required to buy the companies' policies, feeding the insatiable greed of their CEO's and filling the campaign coffers of the politicians they wine and dine. Profits are secure; they don't have to worry about competition from a public alternative to their cartel, and they can continue to scam us without fear of antitrust action.

The big drug companies bought their protection before the fight even began, when the White House agreed that if they supported Obama's brand of health care reform -- not reformation -- they could hold onto their monopoly. No imports of cheaper drugs from abroad, no prescriptions filled at a lower price by our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north.

And let's not forget another, gigantic health care winner: a new report from the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity says the battle for reform has been "a bonanza" for the lobbying industry. According to the Center's analysis, "About 1,750 businesses and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, total -- eight for each member of Congress -- and spent at least $1.2 billion to influence health care bills and other issues."

But while we're at it, a cheer for the federal student loan overhaul -- Democrats managed to pass that reform with an end run around powerful lobbyists, cleverly nestling it in the health care reconciliation package.

Nonetheless, under pressure from the lending industry, it, too, was watered down from its original intent. The three Democratic senators who voted against -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor -- have all received campaign contributions from Nelnet, the student loan company based in Nelson's home state of Nebraska, or its lobbyists.

(And would you be amazed to learn that one of the student loan industry's lobbyists used to be Blanche Lincoln's chief of staff? The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call described Kelly Bingel as Lincoln's "alter ego," and cited a former colleague saying Bingel was "first on the list of the Senator's callbacks," words that would sound like heaven to any Washington lobbyist's ears.)

Another case of reform gone off track: this week, a year and a half after Wall Street brought us so close to fiscal hell we could smell the brimstone, a crippled little financial regulation bill seems to be hobbling out of the wreckage, but still faces an array of well-armed forces gunning for it.

No wonder. In the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, members of the Senate Banking Committee -- which sent the bill to Congress this week -- received more than $39 million from Wall Street and the banks; members of the House Financial Services Committee raked in more than $21 million -- so far. Just how serious do you think they're going to be about true reform?

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut has sounded like a champion of reform ever since he announced he will not run for reelection. It's about time. Since 2005, his top ten campaign contributors have included Citigroup, AIG, Merrill Lynch and the now deceased Bear Stearns, all front-line players in bringing on the financial calamity.

Then there are the Republicans, shamelessly hawking their favors en masse to the highest bidder. The website Politico.com reports that the reelection campaign of Tennessee Senator Bob Corker -- who's one of the key negotiators on financial reform -- sent an e-mail to Wall Street lobbyists and others soliciting contributions of up to $10,000 for a chance to meet or grab a meal with the senator.

Informed of the e-mail, Corker was shocked -- shocked! -- saying the e-mail was "grotesque and inappropriate." But did House Republican leader John Boehner think it was inappropriate last week when he advised the American Bankers Association to fight back against the proposed rules and regulations?

This is, of course, the same John Boehner who in the summer of 1995 walked around the floor of the House of Representatives handing out checks to his fellow Republicans -- checks from a tobacco company. And the same John Boehner who was the grateful recipient of campaign contributions from the four Native American tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist currently cooling his heels in a Federal corrections facility.

So wouldn't it have been fascinating to have been a fly on the wall earlier this year when Boehner sat down for drinks with Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase? Reportedly, he invited Dimon and the rest of the financial community to pony up the cash and see what good things follow.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Republicans already were receiving an increasing share of campaign contributions from the Street. In the game of reform, it's the political version of loading the dice.

We can't know for sure what Ambrose Bierce would have made of all this; what The Devil's Dictionary author would say about the current DC scams. But he might have agreed that the only answer to organized money is organized people. That would be one hell of a reformation.

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog.

This article originally appeared on CommonDreams.Org.

Con Law: Free speech is a human right

There are many proposals to extend the reach of democracy by revising the Constitution, from excising the electoral college to remodeling the Senate, but no proposal to amend the document has gained more traction than the effort to add a clause declaring that corporations should not be considered "persons" and cannot claim the same rights under the law as human beings. Since the Supremes based their recent ruling that corporate spending to influence elections is a free speech right flowing from the legal fiction that corporations are persons, the proposed amendment would undermine the foundation of the court's decision. A coalition of public interest organizations has launched a campaign to overturn the ruling. The groups -- Voter Action, Public Citizen, Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance -- say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. Their aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, is to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.

For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, visit Free Speech for People.
Listen to a press call on the Supreme Court decision.
View the Supreme Court ruling.

See, also: Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations (Impractical Proposals 2010-01-24)

Actions:
Sign Campaign to Legalize Democracy's Move to Amend petition.
Spread the word by urging others to visit www.freespeechforpeople.org for information on the constitutional reform campaign.

Health Care: Democrat feeds the GOP a bitter pill

In his short career in Congress, Florida Democratic freshman Alan Grayson has become one of my political heroes. You remember those pages Republicans kept waving during Pres. Obama's health care address to Congress? Rep. Grayson found out what is in those pages -- the Republican health care plan: "1. Don't get sick. 2. If you do get sick... 3. Die quickly!"
Naturally, the Republicans, who can dish it out but oh so can't take it, started whining and puling, demanding an apology. And they got it:
Grayson, by the way, is the member of Congress who used a little-known parliamentary maneuver called “extension of remarks” to expand the impact of the House's opportunistic bill to defund ACORN (HR 3221) to every contractor who has ever submitted a fraudulent form of any kind to the Government.

House rules allow a short period for members to offer a "legislative history," instructing the courts and the executive branch on how to interpret a law. According to "Thomas," Congress’s website on legislation, Grayson is the only member of Congress to provide such instruction on this bill. His extension of remarks now becomes the official interpretation of what the bill means:

"The purpose of this bill is to cleanse federal contracting and grant-making, completely and permanently. The purpose of this bill is to put an end to the invidious practice of rewarding those who steal taxpayer money by giving them more taxpayer money. The bill imposes, and is intended to impose, a corporate death penalty on contractors who fall within the scope of its prohibitions," Rep. Grayson wrote in his extension of remarks. So long, Halliburton. Bye bye, Blackwater.

At last, a fighting liberal (just for the fun of it, watch Grayson take on Fed chair Bernanke), a Democrat worth supporting. And you can support him by sending contributions to his office. And you'd better support him, because you can bet the long knives are out for him now.

Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

The romance of the Obama campaign has muddied the waters somewhat, but finally the primaries come down to this: the cult of personality vs issues politics, "winning" vs governing, business as usual vs progressive policy, the corporatist "centrism" of the DNC vs Democratic (and democratic) values, the status quo vs a "new deal" for the American people: Hillary Clinton vs John Edwards. -- JG

John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

by Karita Hummer

Among the most inspiring elements in the John Edwards campaign is his insistence on the reigning in of Lobbyist influence and putting the brakes on corruption, cronyism and insider influence and unfair bottom line practices by some corporations to the detriment of the common good (such as outsourcing, tax shelters, unfair loans. bankruptcy, pollution, etc.)

When I heard him speak last December in Santa Clara, before he declared his candidacy, John Edwards rightly said that it wouldn't due to trade unfair Republican election practices with Democratic election practices that kept the status quo. In other words, in all things, be as principled in our own matters as we expect of the Republicans in theirs.

The corruption, cronyism and rampant favoritism to certain corporations in the Bush Administration is almost without parallel in the history of our national politics. The Bush/Cheney/Rovian political machine has been incomparably efficient in only two areas, putting cronies in place and keeping Republican criticism and nay defection to a bare minimum, and they have been mean-spirited and ruthless. It's as if the ghost of old Tammany Hall (New York City) descended in the White House and took hold throughout government on a national level.

But, if we really want reform, if we really want the common good to be the new bottom line for America, like John Edwards says, we can not trade their corrupt machine for ours. We must rid the Democratic Party of its own tendencies toward machine politics, corruption, cronyism, and the money changers in our government - including no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for high rollers orchestrated by Republican or Democratic machines.

Enough is enough - of the lobbyists and campaign finance high rollers/money changers in our government. Squeaky clean, fair and transparent is the way to go.

This is how Wikipedia describes a political machine:

"A political machine is an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)

The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine>

While political machine approaches do have their admirers (it gets work done efficiently, so some say), by and large, the systems are stifling, reduce creativity and increase a sense of dis-empowerment in the governed. Such systems are usually antithetical to participatory democracy.

I grew up as a child in Pittsburgh,PA. Machine politics was part and parcel of the political fare for the community. It felt oppressive and authoritarian and corrupt. It wasn't until Pete Flaherty was elected Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1969 did one feel a sense of real citizen empowerment and potential.

And get this, about Pete Flaherty, now deceased, who stood up to the Democratic machine of the city of that era:

"Mr. Flaherty, though outspent by a margin of more than 4 to 1, nonetheless cruised to a landslide victory in the 1969 election, launching an administration that would permanently transform Pittsburgh government." By James O'Toole, "Obituary: Pete Flaherty dies at 80, Former mayor and county commissioner", Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05109/490 421.stm>.

So, did you catch that number, outspent by a margin of 4 to 1. (OK, everyone, remember those numbers and take heart!)

So, what am I getting at. I guess it's quite obvious that I am concerned about the seemingly machine like approach to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which would seem to translate in to the type of governance one could expect from her (if she could even get elected which I highly do doubt). The feeling I have about this is based on her attitude toward lobbyist campaign money and other high roller money (even from Murdoch), her seeming inability listen to people and her sense of entitlement to the presidency, based on her insider status.

Altogether, it gives me a feeling of authoritarianism and elitism, that feels antithetical to our best principles in the Party.

We don't need Machine Politics, from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We do need a Democrat who can stand up to the corrupting influences in our government today and say, "No, we aren't going to do business that way anymore. We are going to have a new bottom line, which is the common good - and there is no compromising on that."

That Democrat is John Edwards.

Defense of Lobbyists is old politics and throwing the money changers out is new politics. We need reform for our Country and reform for our Party. The old way doesn't work.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Reposted from John Edwards Blog:
Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

Politics: Emanuel and Schumer protected the conservative domination of Congress in 2006

Progressive complaints about the failure of the Democratic majority to end the occupation of Iraq are based on a misunderstanding of what happened in the 2006 elections. A majority of Americans did not vote to end the war. As an article on Truthout makes clear, they were never given that choice (Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives by Matt Renner; 2007-09-06).

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.

Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.

According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries....

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff....But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

If the Democrats have a clear mandate, it is to put an end to the corruption that became pervasive in the legislature and the executive under Republican control. And in so far as the expectation of a cleanup in Washington has gone largely unfulfilled, the voters are right to be angry and disillusioned.

But on Iraq, there has been no sellout by anti-war Democrats. In fact, considering the conservative makeup of the Congress, Pelosi, Reid, et al, have done a remarkable job of moving the peace process along. The peace movement needs to keep up the pressure to bring more members of Congress to its side. Charges of "betrayal" and "cowardice" against potential Democratic allies are not only inaccurate, they also make putting together a Congressional majority in favor of getting out of Iraq more difficult.

The rest of the story: Truthout.Org

Reform: Congressional Spending Databases

"LegiStorm...is dedicated to providing a variety of important information about the US Congress....a database of congressional staff salaries,...the most comprehensive database of all privately financed trips taken by members of Congress and congressional staffers.

"The information is provided in a strictly factual, non-partisan fashion. We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible. We expect this resource to be useful to journalists, researchers, lobbyists and current and would-be staffers - as well as regular citizens who simply want to know how their representatives spend public money....

"If you have questions or comments about Congress and its workings,...post them on our congressional forum....

"LegiStorm...is a sister company to Storming Media, a company supplying a wide range of technical, policy and strategy papers from the Pentagon, and PatentStorm, a searchable database of millions of US patents." -- from the website. <http://www.legistorm.com/>

Business As Usual: Officials deny there's a link of gaining lobbyist access by giving to top lawmakers' cause (Sacramento Bee)

According to a report in the Sacramento Bee, health industry-related organizations have contributed at least a half a million dollars this year to a ballot initiative intended to ease term limits. It probably comes as no surprise to you that the beneficiaries of this largess are the very lawmakers in charge of the health care overhaul under consideration in the capitol.

Hospitals, drug companies, doctors, dentists and others with a stake in the health care debate, according to the Bee, have put up about a fifth of the roughly $2.6 million collected by those advocating a change in the 1990 term limits law. The measure, if passed by voters Feb. 5, would lower from 14 to 12 the total number of years a lawmaker could serve, but also would allow Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata to remain in their leadership posts for up to six and four years, respectively, beyond 2008.

Even though the don't officially support the measure, some donors from the health care industry are giving directly to the term limits committee, which is run by Núñez's top political adviser.

One donor admits his organization gave to guarantee access to the top players in health care reform. "The whole system of campaign fundraising is such that you have a (political action committee) because you want to get access to people," said Gary Robinson, the executive director of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which gave $5,000 to the term limits measure in late June. "I think everybody's contribution relates to the ability to go to the fundraisers and meet the staff and the members," Robinson said.

Team Núñez, on the other hand, doesn't see a problem.

The Tarnished White House: Is it time for Bush and Cheney to go?

The media pumped for Bill Clinton's impeachment with seven months of non-stop focus on the presidential privates, while the Republican leadership bet the farm animals on ousting him from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.

See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)